Nuclear option

Ironically, the passage of the health care bill seems to have put some politicians’ health in danger. To be specific, numerous Democrats and some Republicans have been subject to threats and vandalism. As of yet, there have been no actual acts of violence against these people.

While people often get rather fired up about politics, the health care bill has generated an unusually extreme response. It is, of course, natural to wonder why.

The easy answer is that people are angry about the matter and angry people sometimes make rather poor decisions. This, of course, raises the question as to why people are so angry.

Some folks would claim that the anger at health care reform is a natural anger arising out of the people. While that might be true in some cases, it seems more likely that the anger has been created and stoked. In any case, it is clear that many politicians and pundits have been quite active in attempting to do just that. After all, folks have been tossing out phrases like “nuclear option”, “baby killer”, and so on that are clearly calculated to incite. Also, the matter has been cast as an epic struggle between what seems to be the side of good and the side of ultimate evil (which is which depends on your political leaning). There have even been calls to eradicate the opposition, which is certainly an extreme position to take.

Naturally, the politicians have been quick to say that they do not condone violence or vandalism. However, such words mean little when they keep up the extreme rhetoric that no doubt helps incline people towards such actions.

Politics is a theater of rhetoric. One common rhetorical tactic is to make use of a dysphemism. Doing this involves using a term or phrase with negative connotations in place of a neutral or positive term or phrase. The purpose of this is to influence how people feel by appealing to their emotions rather than using an actual argument.

One current rhetorical favorite is the phrase “nuclear option.” This name is applied to the process by which a majority can put an end to a filibuster or comparable delaying maneuver. Trent Lott is credited with providing the name in 2003. Interestingly, Republican Bill Frist was the person who is often credited with making this option famous in 2005.

Interestingly, Frist threatened to use this tactic against the Democrats and this resulted in quite a furor. This was eventually resolved.

Currently the term is being used by the Republicans (and Fox News) to refer to the reconciliation tactic (in which the issues can be settled by a simple majority without the possibility of filibusters). Of course, when the Republicans used reconciliations they did not refer to this as the nuclear option. Naturally, people tend not to refer to their own tactics using dysphemisms.

People use dysphemisms for an obvious reason: they work. For example, opinions on health care can be influenced by the use of this tactic. Interestingly, people who favor an idea when it is put in neutral terms can often be led to reject it merely by recasting the neutral terms in the form of dysphemisms.

While dysphemisms are part of the political toolbox, their use does raise concerns. The main concern is that they (and other rhetorical devices) can be used to influence people into accepting claims they would otherwise reject or to reject claims they would otherwise accept. Such manipulation is, at best, morally questionable.

Of course, it can be argued that if people are swayed by such rhetoric, then the fault is partially their own. After all, learning basic reasoning is rather easy and hence people have no real excuse for being such easy victims of these tactics.

This same logic could be applied to many scams as well. After all, people who fall for scams should generally know better and hence are partially to blame for their deception. But, this does not seem to diminish the wrongness of using such scams against people who do not know better.

Likewise, the use of rhetoric to manipulate people also seems to be wrong.

It can also be argued that the use of such rhetoric is acceptable because it actually helps people reach a decision. After all, one might argue, if people did not have the negative feelings in question, then a dysphemism (or other negative rhetoric could not trigger them. So, for example, if people did not have bad feelings about health care, then the Republican’s dysphemisms would not have any such bad feelings to tap into.

However, dysphemisms generally do not work by revealing a person’s true feelings about the subject. Rather, they do their work in virtue of the negative connotation of the term or phrase used. For example, suppose some people are referred to as terrorists. If someone take a negative view of them because of this, this just reveals that the person doesn’t like terrorists. It does not prove that the people dubbed “terrorists” are terrorists nor does it prove that the person’s negative feelings are justified.

While politicians will clearly not stop using rhetoric, people should work on their critical thinking skills so as to avoid being swayed by such things.

The latest rhetorical battle over health care is focused on the reconciliation option. This is a parliamentary procedure that, crudely put, would allow a simple majority in the senate to pass (in this case) health care.

Since the Republicans are currently against health care, they (and the folks at Fox) are now against reconciliation. Not surprisingly, the Republicans had no qualms about using the same tactic themselves and, when that was done, the Democrats were generally against it.

Of course, the fact that the Republicans were for it then and against it now does not prove that the Republicans are not correct in their current arguments against it. However, the arguments they gave in favor of it can be trotted out again and used against their current opposition to the method.

Two main arguments for reconciliation are as follows. First, it is an established procedure and follows the current rules of the senate. This does not mean that it is correct, merely that the Democrats are not doing anything out of order if they use it. As such, the notions that the Democrats are “ramming” things down America’s throat or exercising some sort of crazy nuclear option do not hold much water.

Second, democracy is based on the notion of majority rule. By the numbers, 51 is a majority in population of 100. True, it is the smallest possibility majority, but that does not change the fact that it is a majority. To use a sports metaphor, winning by 1 point is still a win. It can, of course, be argued that a majority is not enough and that a certain greater percentage must be used. If so, this should be applied consistently across the board and regardless of who is in power. Of course, this view would entail that George Bush was “rammed down the throat of America” when he was elected the first time.

In fact, the senate actually works based on majority rule. The 60% that gets tossed around in the news is not what is required to pass a law. Rather, the 60% is what is needed to create a filibuster proof majority.

As such, the Republican attacks on reconciliation are somewhat disingenuous. there are, of course, reasonable arguments against reconciliation, but these are rarely presented.